Delays on the Sagar Ratan due to a COVID-19 outbreak among the crew led to a dispute over hire payments. Pan Ocean (defendants) argued that the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause applied, while Bunge maintained that the delay was not due to port conditions. The High Court ruled in Bunge’s favour, finding that the discharge port of Bayuqyan was not an“Affected Area” under the BIMCO Clause, as the delays were due to the crew’s infection rather than the port conditions. Consequently, the vessel was deemed off-hire during the period of delay and Pan Ocean’s claim for hire payments rejected.

In November 2016, two undersea electricity cables connecting England and France were damaged after a collision between the Stema Barge II and the Saga Sky, causing the anchors of both vessels to drag over the cables. RTE sought damages from the Stema Interests, Network Rail, and Costain, while Stema UK attempted to limit liability under the 1976 Limitation Convention. After multiple proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that Stema UK could not limit its liability under the Convention, and the High Court barred Stema UK from raising a new limitation defense, citing principles of res judicata and cause of action estoppel because it was not an operator and did not thus come within the ambit of the relevant statute.

Winch Design secured a judgment against Mr Le Souef for £733,750 for unpaid invoices, with the court ruling that he - not Somnio Superyachts - was the true contracting party. The contract’s payment terms were upheld, rejecting claims that invoices were contingent on performance, while Mr Le Souef’s argument that Winch had agreed to delay payment was dismissed outright. With no evidence of rectification, estoppel, or a collateral contract, the court found against Mr Le Souef on all counts, awarding Winch the full sum.

Russian courts imposed astronomical financial penalties on Google, amounting to sums as high as £102 nonillion - figures described as “extravagant, indeed other-worldly, sums of money.” The penalties, bearing no relation to compensatory damages, were imposed as repeated penalty payments, doubling periodically with no cap. Seeking to prevent enforcement outside Russia, Google argued that the sums were punitive, unprecedented, and imposed in breach of contractual jurisdiction clauses.

The Supreme Court held that the time bar in Article III Rule 6 of the Hague and Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery after discharge and other breaches occurring post-discharge but before delivery. Rejecting arguments limiting the time bar to the “period of responsibility” (loading to discharge), Lord Hamblen confirmed its broader scope, including pre-loading breaches linked to specific goods. This decision resolves a longstanding legal dispute, clarifying the Rules’ application to breaches beyond the traditional “period of responsibility”.